Part I of a three part series discussing the Christopher Cain film September Dawn. This part focuses on the craft of the film. Part II, discussing the film and history, can be seen here.

1) Last night, I became one of a select group of Americans – those few thousand of us who paid money to see September Dawn. The refrigerator door on this is closing; the thing lost half its showtimes in the DC area since it opened last week, and I’m imagining it will be gone by the seventh of September, when some good movies open. There were eight people in the theatre – myself, my companion, a young couple, and four portly middle aged gentlemen, all of whom came separately. I’m not sure what this says about the target demographic here.

2)It’s about as bad as you’ve heard. Most jarring, to me, was the editing, which has to be really screwed up for your average moviegoer to notice it. And the magnificent failure here certainly qualifies. Continuity of time and place was confusing; in one scene, days apparently passed in the time it took a character to stand up and walk across a field. In another, it was difficult to tell how far apart characters were standing, because the editor inexplicably chose to give us closeups of one character’s face and medium range shots of everybody else. Plus, hugely amateurish overuse of overlays. This is when we see cheery innocent members of the Fancher party gamboling about while a closeup of Jon Voight’s Portentious-Looking Wrinkled Brow (hereafter, PLWB) hovers semi-transparently in sky above. I’m calling you out, Jack Hofstra.

3)This is not, however, to let the rest of the folks here off the hook. The director, Christopher Cain, certainly deserves some partial credit for some of the achievements above (particularly, the overlays). But he also attains some sort of transcendent glory of his own, particularly when he strives to achieve art and leaps in front of the camera waving his arms and screaming, “Look at me! I’m a good director!” The moments in which he toys with the Blair Witch-patented Jittery Cam are a case in point. Everything’s sedate and normal; nice wide angle on the Late Night Mormon Meeting of Death. But, suddenly, we’re on a roller coaster headed straight for Jon Voight’s PLWB, swooping sideways; then we swing to the right and left, presumably because we are alarmed by the Mormon robots who have begun chanting, “Blood atone-ment, blood atone-ment” in the manner of stoned college cheerleaders. Cain apparently got the Jittery Cam in the mail that morning and broke it by the end of the day, because we have never ridden this ride before and will never again. Cain also does some other over-aggressive stuff; he doesn’t have a very good sense of blocking, his use of slow motion is of the same caliber as his use of overlay, and his manipulation of light is best characterized with the term ‘ham-fisted.’

4)This brings us to the plot. There’s not much of it. There are allusions to all the potentially interesting machinations among the local Mormon leadership in the days leading up to the massacre; Isaac Haight and William Dame get name-checked, but never actually appear on screen. John D. Lee is embodied in the person of Uncle Rico, and actually is gifted with more than one personality dimension; he gets to be Conflicted, presumably because he later got scapegoated and spilled his guts. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. All of the scheming, plotting, politics and so forth are scrapped in favor of Trent Ford proving himself to be a horse whisperer and riding around on a finicky stallion. This goes on for about the first third of the film, by which point we suddenly lurch into the massacre, which apparently has been planned and organized while Cain was filming the horse stuff.

5)Characters. Mostly shallow and uninteresting. Trent Ford at one point tells Tamara Hope that he’s never met anyone like her, which proves that Trent Ford has apparently never met a female before, because poor Tamara doesn’t seem to have a personality. However, we are also informed at one point that Mormons don’t know how to love, so maybe Trent is just confused. There are some weak gestures toward interesting. Jon Voight, for example, gets to ruminate about his experiences in Missouri and once tells us why he converted to Mormonism (which, actually, opens a fairly intriguing can of character worms), but all of that goes away when Cain decides that the character is better served leading the Mormon robots in chants about blood atonement. Plus, Trent Ford’s brother might go insane at one point, which would be interesting if any sort of reasoning, pathology, or explication were given. There aren’t, so I use ‘might.’ He does leap about gibbering in Indian costume, though, so I just assumed.

6)Dialogue. The best stuff’s the pastiches from the Journal of Discourses, which, fascinatingly, makes Brigham Young seem the most intelligent person in the movie by light years. Remember how Trent Ford tells Tamara Hope that he’s never met anyone like her? He does it again later. Then again. Once, she tosses it back at him. This is the stuff of which true love is made. By the end of the movie, poor Jon Voight seems like a crazed nineteenth century Mormon version of a Quentin Tarantino character: he can’t open his mouth without uttering the same two words, which, in Jon’s case, are ‘blood atonement.’ There’s a minister of the sort that used to get high with his hippie buddies and ramble about peace and love, man, on the liberal arts campuses of 1971. He hangs out with the Fancher party and mumbles about how Jesus loves everybody through a cornpone, folksy southern accent. He also wears a cross that he bought at his local cheap Christian bookstore before he traveled back in time. He’s distributed them among the Fancher party, too. At one point, three people are lined up wearing matching crucifixes prominently over their clothes. It’s like a rap video, except with nineteenth century white people.

Oh, and Brigham Young has a British accent. No real explanation, except probably that Terence Stamp intimidated Cain enough that the director was afraid to ask him to drop it.

7)Good stuff? Yeah, there’s some. I thought Dean Cain was great as Joseph Smith. He first turns up in a flashback, standing outside the Nauvoo Expositor offices while Jon Voight and friends tear the place up, delivering a monologue that more or less boils down to “Burn, baby, burn” with a fantastic little smirk on his face. However, while Brigham Young speaks in a humorless monotone and Jon Voight does his best babbling crazy guy, Dean Cain’s Joseph has a sense of humor (the only character in the whole movie who achieves that, by the way). He’s slightly roguish, pleased with himself, and he absolutely drips with charisma. He’s big, lanky, and loose-limbed, casual of movement and aspect, but, beneath the surface, a man capable of ordering the Expositor destroyed. And he was on screen for five minutes. A pity.

Most of the flashes of style and art in the film were like this, emerging, suddenly, from the leaden morass that characterized just about every other aspect of the film, only to vanish into the mists like Trent Ford’s personality. But they were enough (along with the occasional burst of unintentional comedy), that I was entertained – though despite, rather than because of, the efforts of Cain and the crew.

To be followed by another post exploring the provocative theological and historical innovations of Christopher Cain.

All this is wishful thinking and why would you think the theatre would be packed in Utah?

Read just one of the many things we are hearing about the movie “September Dawn”

Helen,
My wife, myself and our son went to the movies last night and saw September Dawn. Words cannot express how I felt watching that movie. The lies, the deceit, the cold blooded murders, the twisted scripture, the brain washing… and all in blasphemy using the name of the LORD as the source of their commands! My prayer is that the LORD will use this movie to open the eyes of the Mormon community so they’ll see the truth.
I could not tell you when the last time was that I saw a movie that made such an impact on me… I was nearly exhausted after it was over.
God Bless you guys,
Travis

Now let me tell you where I live just 1.5 blocks from the Mormon temple in Nauvoo, IL aka “Mormon Mecca”.

We were not going to get the movie “SEPTEMBER DAWN” in a little area like this…However, there was such an out cry that it is opening on September 14th in Burlington, IA and the people of Hancock County and surrounding areas will fill the theatre every night!

So don’t hold your breathe for this movie to go away anytime soon! There are lots of people out there just like me, who want the Mormon Church to release those they murdered to their families! And this movie is bringing forth information to Americans, that most have never heard of before “Mountain Meadows Massacre” September 11, 1857 of the Fancher-Baker wagon train!

My husband Rocky and I will just be getting back to Nauvoo (the day before the movie opens) from “Mountain Meadows” the grave site of those murdered by the Mormon Priesthood! We will be there as invited guests of the descendants of those that were murdered for no reason whatsoever, except they were crossing the country from AK to CA!

Write all the stuff you would like but you can’t hide the TRUTH and longer!

Don’t kid yourself; you’re not going to that movie to “see the truth;” you’re going to see September Dawn because you are hoping it will help you feel good about yourself in relation to others. It’s really sad that your Christianity compels you to seek feelings of self-righteousness by paying money to see mawkish and melodramatic depictions of other people’s sins, but hey- whatever works for you.

Helen – I appreciate your concern, but as Dan noted, I’m not denying that the massacre happened. Rather, I’m pointing out that September Dawn is a pungent piece of cinematic hackery. Not quite the same thing.

By the way, we’re not so much a fan of the cut and pasting here; I’ve cut down much of your article and replaced it with a link.

This was an article written by my husband in the local newspaper here in Nauvoo, IL. What would have preferred I do retype the entire article which puts forth facts?
Second, I totally disagree with you, that this movie is cinematic hackery. I could flood this site with emails from those that have seem the movie and more that are planning to go see it! Matt B you and I seem to have a difference of opinion going on here. btw.. I did know you are from DC not Utah!

Helen – I think it’s great that you are willing to stand up for what you believe. You clearly have great faith in Christ, yet you expend so much energy tearing away at the Mormon church. It seems so… wasteful

Then stood there up one in the Council… named Gamaliel…and commanded to put the Apostles forth a little space, and said unto them, Ye Men of Israel, …Refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this Counsel or this Work be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest happily ye be found even to fight against God [Acts 5:34-35,38-39].

Helen,
Be fair, why pick on Mormons alone?Why not condemn the Inquisition instead,wherein thousands of people have been murdered by the mother church?Why not condemn the killings made today in our times in the name of their respective faith (i.e Muslims and Christians alike)?LDS in general are not what other bias individuals project it to be,there may be a few who went too far maybe because of the abused that they experience from the hands of some evil people ,but as a whole we want to co-exist peacefully with other faith.Please don’t imply that you are more righteous than others simply because of watching a movie against LDS faith.Try to do a more Christlike approach in converting people to your personal belief.Listen to the High Priest Gamaliel (Acts 5)..In the end,if in case both of our respective beliefs are wrong, the LORD will judge us on how we judge others and the good works we have done unto them.

I could flood this site with emails from those that have seem the movie and more that are planning to go see it.

Now, Helen, surely you realize that any crappy movie will be able to find a few appreciative audience members, either because they too have an axe to grind, or (which is more likely) their sense of taste is all in their mouths.

The site for the Book of Mormon Movie had tons of comments posted about how powerful the film was, when in reality the BOMM is possibly the worst thing ever committed to photosensitive film. It only had power to nauseate.

Even though a few crackpots enjoyed the ego-massage of this poorly made film does not mean it had any real merit. Look at the overwhelming reaction by critics!

You sound like someone with a voice in the anti-/ex-Mormon community. So let me beg of you to encourage only the very best propaganda from now on: as members of the world’s fastest-growing cult, surely we deserve higher production values than this. It doesn’t look like your crowd is even really trying.

Helen, even historian Will Bagley thought the movie was crappy and unfair.

You know, the historian who wrote a book on Mountain Meadows? And not a book friendly to the Mormons either. He is one of the primary advocates for the idea that Brigham Young personally ordered the massacre. The interview I heard him speaking in, he accused the Church of “moral cowardice” in failing to own up to the hierarchy’s involvement in the killings. His book has been attacked on FARMS and FAIR for one-sided research. Yet he is, nonetheless, regarded as one of the top scholars on the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Basically, the anti-Mormons love this guy, and quote his book regularly.

I have to say, I am disturbed by the response to Helen’s post. This was not really the place for her to comment (a DAMU site would have been better), but the responses are ALL aimed at her and show about as much charity as Mr. Cain did in his depiction of a historical tragedy.
Sorry, but this is simply wrong.
The question for me is, how do we respond when someone mischaracterizes us? When they judge us by some sin in our past rather than by who we are at present? When they buy into a lie (and _September Dawn_, in its very free and rather slanderous fictionalization, does indeed present a lie)? Do we then justify ourselves in something akin to Bible bashing? Do we delude ourselves into thinking that we will persuade someone into thinking otherwise through harsh and clever words or accusations? That’s much more Jerry Springer than Jesus Christ.
_September Dawn_ is bad history, and it’s a bad film. But why waste time arguing about it? Let all the Helens in the world believe as they will. Our power is never in flinging verbal arrows, but in who we prove ourselves to be as we act upon our faith.
I apologize if I sound harsh myself. I just returned from an MTC branch testimony meeting where I heard newly called missionaries talk about how they had heard the core message of the gospel and responded to the love of God; how eager they are to share this love with those they’ll meet on their missions; how much they want their own families to know that love.
This is who we are: a church that rejoices in the Lord Jesus Christ and actively invites others to come unto Him. We are not here to defend our history, but to step boldly into our future. Though there will be moments when we will be called upon to answer historical difficulties (and it is a good idea to know about them), such is far, far from the center of why we call ourselves Saints, and how we stive to live accordingly.

Helen, if you are still monitoring this thread, I wonder whether you could clarify something for me. Your husband’s article talks about the desire of the Fancher descendants to properly bury their dead, which he says the Church has refused to allow.

I would like to understand exactly what they have proposed that has been denied. My understanding was that the Fancher descendants absolutely did *not* want the bones of their ancestors disturbed in any way, and they were angered a few years ago when a backhoe accidentally brought some of the bones to light. (Those particular bones have been reburied by the descendants.) So everything I’ve seen suggests that they do not want the bones disturbed. I am therefore surprised at the assertion that they want to excavate the bones for reburial (in Arkansas?). I’m hoping you can clear this up for me.

Please don’t send Helen to those of us over in the DAMU. We dislike Bible-banging trolls, as the logic of rejecting Mormonism while accepting evangelical Christianity escapes us. The movie has been panned far and wide, but the NY Post review is the funniest of them all.

It seems rather hypocritical of you to accuse Mormons of “name calling”, considering the inflammatory and horribly biased content of the several links you’ve provided on this thread.

It appears to me that you believe all Mormons are either evil zealots or ignorant dupes. Would you say that’s the case? Or do you believe that there are intelligent Mormons who honestly believe in the restored gospel and who know as much, or more, than you do about LDS history?

Moving back to my original question–which I really would like answered: What does happen to movies that flop so spectacularly? Why would a video rental place even buy copies? Does international marketing kick in? I suppose some desperate cable channel would broadcast it. (Even _The R.M._ and _The Hometeachers_ made it onto local cable in UTah.) And what will happen to Jon Voight’s career? Can you do that kind of caricature and still find work?

Danithew–I think this movie IS a fire made of buffalo chips. And it will actually burn.

The Deseret News article you linked says nothing about Fancher “descendants [trying] for years to be granted access to these mass graves to properly honor and bury their dead,” as Rocky claims. In fact, it says that the largest organization of Mountain Meadows descendants aren’t asking for anything but “reconciliation, love and forgiveness.”

Did I read the same article you did? Or perhaps you read it with your “Mormon Priesthood murderers” glasses on….

Helen,
Thank you for the TRUTH. All these years I thought it had something to do with Jesus Christ and love and forgiveness and stuff like that but you’ve taught me the TRUTH…about the TRUTH. Oh, and thank you for just telling me the TRUTH so I wouldn’t have to wait and see the movie about the TRUTH.

Jon Voight’s career will continue on as it has been. He will find an occasional role as some duplicitous bad guy and so on. He’s got enough good connections in Hollywood that he will be just fine. Besides, so few people have seen this, that it really won’t affect his star power.

I can’t say for sure, but I imagine the movie got off the ground in much the same way that Passion of the Christ did; personal capital. Cain has a bit, as he’s directed a few studio films before. Voight, of course, has more. He’s got an Oscar (well-deserved; he’s a fine actor when he has good material), and that’s close to being a lifetime pass.

The movie was independently financed on the strength of Cain and Voight’s combined credibility, which also allowed them to land a couple of distribution deals – not as many as they would have liked, I’m sure, but of the scale of many independent movies. The tanking means that it’ll likely not do much in the way of foreign or cable business, but it’ll definitely turn up on video. Most independent movies do more business in the rental and sales arena than on the big screen (such as the Book of Mormon Movie), a fact of which I’m sure Cain and the crew are aware.

There does exist in this world a well-done, award-winning film about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It tells the whole story in a much better and balanced tone than does the recently released historical fiction version that has received such bad reviews, and includes interviews with survivors of both the perpetrators and the victims.

Of course, I am greatly relieved that Jon Voight will be okay. That’s a load off my mind.
I looked at the website for _Burying the Past_. I don’t know about the marketing value of the phrase “Uncover the story you were never supposed to know.” There is so much compelling material in the MMM itself–so much potential for developing genuinely conflicted characters and true pathos–that it seems a bit silly to focus on the idea that THIS IS A CONTROVERSY. All sorts of things are controversial and have absolutely no interest for me. (I do not need to learn all of the conspiracy theories in Princess Di’s death, and the “grassy knoll” idea in the death of JFK smells like stale bread.) I’ll admit that since I’ve known about the MMM since I can remember, it doesn’t carry the controversial tint for me.

Why not market on something truly marketable–like fleshed-out characters facing huge moral dilemmas? The real story might not be the MMM itself but John D. Lee’s decision to be the fall guy. If I were doing it, I’d do MMM in flashback only.

Nonetheless, I would like to learn more about _Burying the Past_–but I don’t think I’d be willing to fork out 30 bucks to view it. I hope the producer/writer can find an avenue to distribute it less expensively.

Try paying attention to what the Massacre descendants groups had to say this time, instead of just the Mormon Church double speak and refusal to let go of those they murdered!

While you have your face buried in your hat maybe you can “see” or I meant read in Rocky’s article that it was Scott Fancher, Bob Fancher, Ron Wright and Phil Bolinger, president of the Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation, who where on “Truth Outreach” speaking for themselves. Visit their site again, that is if you even bothered to do so in the first place:http://1857massacre.com/default01.htm

Let the words of MMMF members speak for themselves…get your seer stones out and pay attention!

“Our Board places priority on the federal stewardship issue and will request the cooperation of the LDS Church in our quest for National Monument status for Mountain Meadows grave sites. Our Foundation will present a clear-cut rationale for such a request and will delineate the positive benefits for getting the graves out of LDS ownership.

Our second issue is a request to remove all wagon train victims and survivors from the LDS baptismal rolls. Those people died as Methodists and Presbyterians and should be returned to their original faith. Most descendants resent their relatives being pressed into the religion of those involved in the massacre.
The third issue on our agenda is ownership of funerary objects taken from the grave in the 1999 “accidental” unearthing of 29 human remains at Mountain Meadows. Buttons from women dresses were declared property of the LDS Church and placed on loan at Carroll County Museum. If the LDS Church can own funerary objects taken from a grave (in spite of an opposite ruling by the Utah State-Archaeologist) they can legally claim the bones that were reburied in the little boxes on September 10, 1999.”

In 2007 Mormon Leader/profit Gordon B. Hinckley stated “It is not in the best interest of the Church” Oh really! Why, didn’t someone ask him…WHY NOT?

What is really disturbing reading the comments from Mormons, is that it tends to show that the blind loyalty of 1857 seems to be very much alive today.

It seems that bigotry is alive and well on all sides of this issue, huh? Personally I think that what happened in 1857 is terrible, and the coverup afterwards terrible as well. I’m not sure how I’m supposed to be such a terrible person simply because I’m LDS. Could you explain to me?

Burying the Past is almost as crappy a work as September Dawn. The documentary skews itself against the church as much as possible at every available moment. It literally couldnâ€™t possibly be any less balanced. Director Brian Patrick claimed he had no agenda with the documentary, but the film itself is rather transparently intended to end up on the shelf next to The God Makers.

“It seems that bigotry is alive and well on all sides of this issue, huh? Personally I think that what happened in 1857 is terrible, and the coverup afterwards terrible as well. Iâ€™m not sure how Iâ€™m supposed to be such a terrible person simply because Iâ€™m LDS. Could you explain to me?”

Margaret – I think you’re dead on; the interesting thing about the MMM, for the purposes of storytelling, is not the event itself, but the psychology surrounding it. Juanita Brooks’s Lee biography is more interesting, I think, than the Massacre book. Which is why I’m unhappy September Dawn chose to focus on a cardboard love story rather than the debates and decision-making of the folks who perpetrated the crime.

Eric – I’ve not seen Burying the Past, but I’ve heard Patrick about it, which left me with a similar impression.

Helen – you’re welcome to participate in discussion here, but you’re drifting into mockery and spam-like advocacy and inciting like responses. Let’s all tone it down a little bit.

I hope you take the time to read back through my posts. You will find that I did not even respond to most in any direct way whatsoever, even after numerous one’s had my name on them. It was just one attack toward me after another.

I do guess that my passion for the descendants of Mountain Meadows Massacre after having met four of them has changed me in a lot of ways. I saw first hand the hurt and pain on these four men, as they talked of their families. As I read some of the statements about this movie when I have personally spoken with these men and they didn’t have a problem with the it. Made me wonder just where is it all coming from is it; September Dawn: Criticism or Sabotage?

First and foremost though, I want to set something straight that being my husband Rocky and I live in Nauvoo, IL on his retirement. He served this country 33 years in the Navy on active duty, most of which was deployed around the world.

His entire family are Mormons going back six generations. We both have no ill feelings nor hatred for the Mormon people. It is the teachings and doctrines of the Church that we have a huge problem with.

In fact, if that were the case (we hated Mormons) we wouldn’t be living in a building that was built in 1893 in a small apartment upstairs. We wouldn’t be on call 7 days a week 24/7. We could have taken his Navy Officer training and moved to San Diego, CA (where I lived at the beach when we met) lived a wonderful life taking one of two jobs he was offered having salaries that started at over six figures on top of his retirement pay, but instead we live here and the salary is zero!

On last thing there is a good book by Fawn Brodie “No Man Knows My History” which is fair and balanced.

Helen, we all know this. I’ve got Brodie, Quinn, Bagley, Brooks, all sitting on my bookcase. The same probably applies (perhaps plus-or-minus one or two here or there) to Matt, Mike, Margaret, and for that matter most of the folks commenting here.

Your assumption that we haven’t read any Mormon history is condescending. It’s also incorrect.

All the reviews I’ve seen or read of the movies say it’s mediocre, at best.

I think it was Dan who said we don’t know what a massacre is. I’ve just finished reading Jean Kirkpatrick’s book. Croatia, Kosovo, those were massacres. Rwanda, Darfur, those are massacres. Haun’s Mill and Mountain Meadow pale in comparison to the tragedies occuring around the world as we speak.

I think I spelled occuring wrong.

BTW, I’ve discovered the Sundance Channel and IFC. Last night I watched Motorcycle Diaries. Now THAT’s a movie :).

I’d be interested in a different discussion, like how in-house LDS movies keep things pristine but not quite true (though historical truth always gets filtered through somebody’s lense) as opposed to something like _September Dawn_, which comes with the agenda to paint quite a different picture of Mormonism–and also falls far, far short of the truth (but with a vengeance).

What saddens me about this discussion is its implications about our abilities to communicate with each other well. Helen made some broad assumptions about her audience, not realizing that (as Kaimi said) most of us are pretty aware of various historical controversies in Mormonism–and have long since moved beyond them into the real realm of our faith. (That realm acknowledges the MMM and a bunch of other issues/events but recognizes the messiness of mortality and clings to the hope of redemption.) But the fact that people on this blog continued to engage her in confrontational (and completely ineffective) ways should teach us something. The comments speak past each other. No communication.

Does _Mormon Mentality_ have rules? I can’t find any. I think Helen could have been redirected to another blog rather simply. This wasn’t the place for her. But why did everyone feed into it? Surely we’re not stupid enough to think that she could be persuaded to think kind thoughts about Mormons by this kind of conflict.

Margaret, it does appear that most here don’t want a different view. Guess it is kind of like when Joseph Smith had the newspaper “Nauvoo Expositer” destroyed here in Nauvoo, IL.

I mentioned one book “Know Man Knows My History” because it is a fair look at the Founder of the Mormon Church…Joseph Smith. In no way (Kaimi) was I implying that there aren’t numerous other books or that most of you here, haven’t read them…geez!

Yeah, Margaret that’s the ticket…send me off to another blog ’cause I don’t agree with you!

Does _Mormon Mentality_ have rules? I canâ€™t find any. I think Helen could have been redirected to another blog rather simply. This wasnâ€™t the place for her. But why did everyone feed into it? Surely weâ€™re not stupid enough to think that she could be persuaded to think kind thoughts about Mormons by this kind of conflict.

Helen could have been directed to another blog yes, but I think we’d rather deal with her nastiness ourselves than inflict her on others. Also, she chose to come here. Earlier in the comments someone mentioned the DAMU sites. She could have gone there. There are number of sites (and I’m sure she knows them) where she could have gone where she’d’ve gotten resounding “amens” in response. She’s not interested in them. She came here because she’s interested in shoving her “truth” down our throats. We only did to her what she was trying to do to us. On the other hand, if you’re using her as your moral compass then you’re already lost.

As for why we fed into it — I think it’s because we’ve been anticipating something like this ever since word came that “September Dawn” was being made. Then the opening was delayed repeatedly. We got sick of waiting for the other shoe to drop. Helen came and kindly dropped it for us.

Margaret is right that we are talking past each other. I think everyone one this site recognizes that the MMM happened, and that it was led and perpetrated by Mormons. We are perfectly willing to accept the “different view” Helen keeps referring to, as long as it is supported by credible, contextually accurate history that weighs alternative evidence. But I’m certain that Helen and many like her derive some personal satisfaction from dwelling on the horrifying sin of a bunch of bat-crazy Mormons in mid-19th century Southern Utah, and for that reason she’s very much interested in THE TRUTH of that story, and not in the truth about us, who we are, and what we believe today. It’s just so much easier to debate caricatures than real, reasonable people.
Margaret is also right that there are other, better questions to consider; my thinking about the entertainment industry and the broader media is that the most successful TV and talk radio shows, movies, and books make their consumers feel either smarter or righteous than they really are. Viewers of American Idol feel like expert music critics, just as readers of Under The Banner Of Heaven feel tremendously enlightened relative to large numbers of religious people. I think September Dawn and No Man Knows My History both accomplish that; one can read or watch either of those products and come away with feelings of “I’m so glad I’m not like those blind, naive, sheeplike Mormons.” And because a number of people crave that feeling, there will always be a market for those products.

Well, I don’t think I’d want to compare _September Dawn_ to _No Man Knows My History_ since Brodie (my cousin, btw) really was a historian, and Mr. Cain appears to be simply a bad director/writer. (The first rule of good writing, as I teach my students, is that there is no such thing as the “good guy” or the “bad guy.” We are all complex beings, and such reductiveness cheats any intelligent audience.) But what a compelling idea– that things like _American Idol_ make fake experts and involve us all in a culture of mediocrity and easy, even capricious judgment. Very interesting thought, Dan.

I remember when my son auditioned for Provo High’s version of _American Idol_ and endured the horrible insults of a guy pretending to be Simon Cowell. It was humiliating for him. No high school kid should have to go through that. But of course, the audience howled with laughter at the clever insults. My own children were nearly in tears over their brother’s pain. They made him a candy chart telling him he was THEIR “Provo Idol.”

I’m off to do some fun family things, but I’m going to think about that comment, Dan. I like your ideas.

I enjoyed your review, Matt. In fact, your descriptions are amusing enough that I might at least give the movie a look when it’s available on Netflix, so that I can see firsthand the thrilling romance and chants of blood atonement.

Margaret,
I have no intention of persuading Helen, nor any illusion to that possibility. I just wanted to make fun of her enough so that she would leave (it clearly hasn’t worked, perhaps I should crank it up to 11?)

I’ve been blogging for over three years now and am acutely aware that there are certain people who are interested in conversation. It is manifestly clear that Helen is not one of them. In fact, I will act as a prophet and prophesy that she is only going to be around for this one thread and then disapper. She doesn’t care about what we have to say inasmuch as it contradicts her current beliefs so there’s no real point in trying to engage with her in serious conversation. Therefore, the only logical recourse is to salvage the conversation by making her into the butt of your joke, at least you get a good joke out of it.

Helen, it’s not that we don’t agree with your ideas because they are different from ours. It’s that we don’t agree with your ideas because they are poorly expressed, shrill, badly spelled and mostly incoherent.

What are you trying to say? That Mormons today belong to an evil cult because 150 years ago some Mormons killed 120 innocent people? I think every single writer here on this blog will agree that some Mormons 150 years ago killed 120 innocent people. What they don’t agree with is that this makes the church today an evil cult.

You’re not dealing with run-of-the-mill Mormons here, Helen. They’re bright, highly literate, and well-educated. Many, many of them are very interested in Mormon History and have studied it thoroughly. They have all the same data you have, and yet most of them have received a spiritual witness that God wants them to be members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Poorly-executed rehashing of stories they already know (and are deeply saddened by) will not change that witness.

I saw the movie last weekend, and I have to say my favorite part of the romance was when Trent Ford gave Tamara, wearing her fifth stylish dress in as many days, a locket he keeps in his waistcoat containing a perfect tiny snapshot of his mother who died in 1842, apparently in Utah.

As dreadul as the movie is, I feel for the filmmakers today. It has to be hard to see your creation laughed off the stage. It was clearly a passion project. Missplaced passion, but still – I hope this isn’t anyone’s last film. It would be a very sad note to go out on.

Let me clarify- I’m not arguing the merits of Fawn Brodie’s work. What I am arguing is that to the extent that it leaves people feeling smug and satisfied that they have all THE TRUTH they need with regards to Joseph Smith — to the point that they can feel intellectually superior to us lowly, benighted souls who accept his prophethood — to that extent, the book’s strength is its ability to flatter.
I could probably produce a book depicting horrifying sins and a lot of bizarre and twisted behavior in Evangelical Christianity, and we would probably all feel brilliant and self-satisfied looking down upon our silly, simple-minded Evangelical brothers and sisters, but I just don’t think that is necessary.
My gut reaction in response to Helen and others like her is to humiliate them, but the end result of that is her feeling more righteous for being picked on, and having her mental caricatures validated.

If we’re going to talk about the sins of various religions, let’s be sure to include Christianity in the antebellum South and its use of the Bible to justify slavery. The Southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1845 after splitting with northern Baptists primarily over the issue of slavery. Today’s Southern Baptists — a significant part of the evangelical Christian movement — are their descendants and historical heirs.

And yet, I don’t see any Mormons (or anyone else for that matter) making films about horrid Southern slavemasters and the beatings (and worse) they inflicted on their slaves, much less directly connecting these actions to their Christian beliefs and Biblical interpretations.

So, Helen, while no one here is denying the atrocity committed by Mormons at Mountain Meadows happened, we are denying that “Mormonism” and “Mormon Priesthood” incontrovertibly lead to such depraved acts. Those particular Mormons, under extreme stress, wrongly used their beliefs to justify murder. But that does not mean Mormonism itself is evil, any more than Southern slavery means evangelical Christianity is evil, or the Inquisition means Roman Catholicism is evil.

You haven’t responded to any of the difficult questions put to you here, so I don’t expect a reply to this. But it would be nice if you would cast the beam out of your own evangelical eye before you point out the mote in our Mormon eye.

“I could probably produce a book depicting horrifying sins and a lot of bizarre and twisted behavior in Evangelical Christianity, and we would probably all feel brilliant and self-satisfied looking down upon our silly, simple-minded Evangelical brothers and sisters, but I just donâ€™t think that is necessary.”

I have to say I find the indignation of this thread a bit amusing, especially on a blog that recently included a post where DKL (and others) apparently endorsed the ridiculous criticism leveled at this film by Michael Medved–essentially saying that the crux of what was so wrong with it was that it was made about the wrong people, i.e. that it wasn’t made about Muslims.

Unless you can say with a straight face that you would be just as disgusted by this film (or, say, by John Krakaeur’s book) if it used the same “ham-fisted,” proof-textish, wholly unfair rhetorical strategies to portray the violent threat “inherent” to modern Islam, than your complaints are nothing but sour grapes. Judging by the treatment of Islam I often encounter on this blog, throughout the ‘nacle, and spewing from Church-owned AM radio stations, most Mormons don’t have a credible leg to stand on when it comes to rationally and substantively criticizing hatchet jobs like September Dawn.

Helen Hulse:it does appear that most here donâ€™t want a different view…

Actually, we’re happy to have multiple points of view here. Mormons are tremendously receptive to discussions about Mountain Meadows. Listen, for example, to this recent Mormon Matters podcast about it. At the recent Mormon History Association conference, there were several sessions about the Mountain Meadows Massacre by Mormons and non-Mormons.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre is a topic of history studied much more frequently by Mormons than non-Mormons, and most of the commenters and bloggers here (especially Matt B, who has won awards for his historical scholarship in Mormon Studies) know considerably more about the event than you do.

No Man Knows My History is a brilliant book — among the finest works of Mormon history. The fact that you’d compare it favorably with September Dawn speaks volumes about how stupid you are. Which brings me to the reason you’re being urged to leave: You are shrill and ignorant.

Brad Kramer:Judging by the treatment of Islam I often encounter on this blog…

Thanks for proving that you don’t read this blog at all. You’ve missed post like this one. Or this one. Or this one. If all you’re going to do is show up to complain about AM radio and lie about Mormon Mentality, then you’ll soon find yourself unwelcome here.

DKL,
My bad, I don’t read this blog as often as I evidently should. I had not seen the threads you linked. My comments were based largely on reaction to comments in your (non)review of SD and people echoing Medved’s lament that this film was made about Mormons instead of Muslims and bemoaning the fact that more SeptemberDawnesque depictions of Islam were not forthcoming from Hollywood. Still, if I’m not welcome, then I’m not welcome.

Brad #59: I don’t typically post here, so I’m not familiar with what has been written about Islam. DKL’s #60 seems to refute what you claim.

But I will gladly affirm that I do not allow my opinion of any religion to be based on the actions of those in its extremist wings. Islam is largely a religion of peace and great devotion to God and to the cause of justice. It is immensely unfortunate that its image in the West is largely driven by a minority of terrorist thugs and despotic government officials.

I only wish that Helen and those who feel like her would be so charitable toward us.

Brad, I think that you’ve misread Medved’s piece. Many of the people who commented on my post commending Medved’s piece on the film seemed to think that because he pointed out that (a) Muslims were a better case study for fanaticism, and (b) that there had been a near absence of case studies on fanaticism that dealt with Muslims, that Medved was bemoaning the fact that SD was not about Muslims. If I hadn’t been so busy these past few weeks, I would have commented more actively to clear up this misconception.

It is a sloppy reading that credits Medved with bemoaning the lack of abuse that Muslims have suffered at the hands of Hollywood. Medved is simply pointing out how bizarre it is to use Mormons as a case study for religious fanaticism. The fact that there are better candidates for such case studies underscores how strange it is to chose Mormons. I stand by my original assessment.

If you choose to continue reading our blog, I’m sure that you’ll find it to not characteristic of the stereotypes that you seem to have anticipated finding.

Are we disgusted by the film? I don’t think disgusted is the right word. Amused, perhaps. Enjoying the critical lambasting. Mountain Meadows was disgusting. A poorly made film about Mountain Meadows is just pathetic (and does no service to the victims, IMO.)

David, I used the word “shrill” first. Obviously we are working from the same troll-fighting script. How much is the church paying YOU to be mean to Helen? I’m getting thousands, I tell you. Thousands.

Some interesting things have come out of this blog conversation. My gut reaction to all of it is that Helen’s second comment (her first wasn’t bad; in fact it was intriguing) should have been bypassed so that the conversation could proceed as Matt B.’s post began it–not as a name-calling match. (That culture of clever insults insinuates itself into the bloggernacle far too often.) A discussion of _September Dawn_ is not the same thing as a discussion about the MMM and all of the many “truths” which have been circulated about it. The Mormon History Association is a good place to talk about the actual MMM. Mormon Mentality is not quite the right forum. It is certainly not the place to debate someone who buys into the hype.

I would love to have Matt B. talk about the MMM–and he has promised a follow-up blog, which I’m looking forward to.

I periodically hear from a guy who uses various pseudonyms and has called me the most obscene names in the book. He feels it his duty to reveal that the Church is bound to the doctrine of the “Curse of Cain.” I engaged him once, and received such an obscene note that I turned it over to the Church’s legal department. Subsequently, I urged everyone on his list to simply ignore his rants. Unfortunately, some well-intentioned soul forwarded my request to the guy, pointing out to him that “real” historians dismissed him entirely. That resulted in the most obscene and libelous accusations against me, all sent to his e-mail list (and which I also forwarded to the Church). I did not respond. I never will respond. And that was the lesson. Engaging people in fights is a waste of time, and never improves the situation. Until people are willing to listen (and on blogs, we don’t necessarily listen; we comment), the conversation plummets easily into contention. I am not after any award for giving the best epithet to shut up an anti-Mormon. The only reason I bother with blogs is to pursue interesting ideas with interesting people.

A great book for the whole phenomenon of blaming others for not listening to us (when in fact we have put up barriers to them) is in C. Terry Warner’s _Bonds that make us Free_. Highly recommended.

What will the results of this blog be? I will take Rusty’s lead and prophesy.
1) I guarantee that Helen has already shown this blog to her husband, who was certainly appalled by the way his wife was treated, and thus was further justified in vilifying Mormons who not avoid “the truth” but who are just plain mean.

2) The blog will be shared (probably already has been) with a group of Helen’s friends and family who share her sentiments about Mormons. We will be the ones who will look “shrill and ignorant.”

3) I won’t be at all surprised if someone gathers a few of the choice epithets employed on this blog to illustrate the “fact” that Mormons are deluded and rude.

Too bad. If Helen had been stopped as soon as her agenda was apparent–and if bloggers had been kind enough not to feed her anger–a lot of heartache might have been avoided. And we never know how far the heartache will extend because WE DON’T KNOW HELEN. All we know is Helen as accuser and offended attacker (having been attacked herself). She appears old enough to have children and grandchildren, all of whom will probably share the offence and carry it. It is true that a lot of us on this blog know far more than Helen does about the MMM. But knowledge was never intended to be a bat over the head. Some of us just had (or just taught) a sunday school lesson on that–based in I Corinthians. Another book I highly recommend.

Rusty–don’t get excited. DKL and Ann are just deducting the amount from their tithing.

And yes, to the unanswered question, I do anticipate an award for my own self-righteousness. Unfortunately, since I make money by writing, I will have to increase my tithing to cover what I’ve said on this blog.

And, I think, using Kaimi’s logic (never attribute to malice that which could easily be explained as a misunderstanding–it’s on my fridge, Kaimi, you’ll never get away from it), had you guys not all got in that “Airplane” style line to bitch slap Helen, but rather, engaged her in an attempt to understand where she was coming from, it wouldn’t have gotten so uncivil.

It’s not a pleasant feeling to have everybody attacking you with words. They did that to me on 7 writers and a frog (I’m not saying I didn’t deserve it, I was rather rude, but I did misunderstand the purpose and context of that blog) and I certainly had to go lay down awhile to recover from the animosity.

You guys know I will always object to banning or censoring. Unless someone uses filthy language or suggestion, I vote against that.

I think dog-piling can happen accidentally. Everyone has an opinion, everyone wants to talk, and when there is naturally a preponderance of one opinion over another, dog-piling will happen unless it is conscientiously avoided.

My feeling is that if Helen comes to an LDS board with her two-dimensional views of Mormonism and starts talking about “lies…deceit…cold blooded murders…twisted scripture…[and] brain washing” and trying to implicate Mormon general authorities and Mormon doctrine for causing MMM, then she deserves a little smackdown.

Being Christlike does not include rolling over whenever someone defames all Mormons and criticizes us unfairly. D&C 123 and a specific promise made in the temple endowment compel us to defend the kingdom of God.

No one is “dog-piling” on Helen. She’s attacking, and we’re responding.

Nope, Mike, that one needs a response. There were probably some folks involved in the MMM who actually did think they were defending the Kingdom of God. So did the Danites in some of their indefensible behavior. And you may or may not know that the endowment was changed specifically to avoid calls to vengeance.

I am not aware of any exceptions to the Savior’s mandate to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek, to go two miles if compelled to go only one. Being Christlike really does involve meekness–and yes, sometimes that means we do not respond when attacked. (“As a sheep before the shearer so he opened not his mouth.”)

I have met you several times in person (though I doubt you’d remember) and have great admiration for the work you do. But on this matter we will simply have to disagree.

“Turning the other cheek” does not mean allowing lies and falsehoods to be promulgated unanswered. Shortly before his death, Elder Maxwell referred to this as “no uncontested slam-dunks.”

The myth of Utah Danites is a persistent one, but completely lacking in evidence. And the “oath of vengeance” asked for God to avenge, not men. So there are subtle nuances here that call into question the “urban legends” of roving bands of Utah Mormons hell-bent on vengeance against the “Gentiles.” The singularity of the MMM event is striking — if the Mormons were so committed to “blood atonement”, why weren’t there more massacres of this sort?

MMM was a horrible event, and a perfect example of what happens to isolated and insulated people who are driven by fear and hatred. But it was not done at the direct command of any LDS general authority.

And I’m certainly not going to sit back when Helen comes here and defames Mormon beliefs and leaders (which, BTW, she does full time, not just as a hobby).

Rusty’s comment: “Iâ€™ve been blogging for over three years now and am acutely aware that there are certain people who are interested in conversation. It is manifestly clear that Helen is not one of them. In fact, I will act as a prophet and prophesy that she is only going to be around for this one thread and then disapper. She doesnâ€™t care about what we have to say inasmuch as it contradicts her current beliefs so thereâ€™s no real point in trying to engage with her in serious conversation. Therefore, the only logical recourse is to salvage the conversation by making her into the butt of your joke, at least you get a good joke out of it.

Now thatâ€™s the TRUTH!”

And now a word from Ann: “Youâ€™re not dealing with run-of-the-mill Mormons here, Helen. Theyâ€™re bright, highly literate, and well-educated. Many, many of them are very interested in Mormon History and have studied it thoroughly. They have all the same data you have, and yet most of them have received a spiritual witness that God wants them to be members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Poorly-executed rehashing of stories they already know (and are deeply saddened by) will not change that witness.”

Hope the two of you, didn’t hurt yourself much, while patting your own backs, as you “praise” yourselves!!??

Ann, just what books are you referring too? Are you studying your history from something that is only “faith” promoting? Or do you have 1st editions of Mormon books are we do?

Rusty, you are no prohpet! It is true, I will be off this post for awhile because this is where I and my husband Rocky will be as members of MMMF:

Rocky and I are traveling to Cedar City, Utah and will be there for September 10 -11th meeting with the “MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MONUMENT FOUNDATION, INC. ” You can find more information about the events taking place at this site: Mountain Meadows Massacre http://1857massacre.com/

2:30 p.m Rocky and Helen Hulse will be at the Mountain Meadows along with MMMF on Tuesday September 11th for the Memorial Observance at the grave site in cooperation with MMMD, MMA, & LDS.

I am looking forward to the facing those “LDS” who are responsible for Mountain Meadows Massare:

Subject: Removal and expunge from all LDS records baptisimal or any other LDS ritual documents on victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre

Dear Elder Jensen:

This is in response to an article I read in the Deseret News, in which you were quoted as saying you only have received only one request to remove the names of only a few people from the LDS baptismal database.

As a family member of two young men who were murdered by Mormons at the Mountain Meadows in 1857, John and William Prewit, I demand the LDS Church and all of its affiliated people and entities expunge from your records any information that would lead one to believe that the LDS or its people have baptized or otherwise brought the souls of these two murder victims into any kind of ritual, baptism, or otherwise accepted them as Mormons, LDS members, Saints, Gods, or any kind of acceptance by the LDS whatsoever.

I am deeply affronted that your organization would have the nerve to do such a thing after the atrocities that occurred by members of your organization against my kin. These boys were Christian men on their way to California and were too young to have families as direct descendents. They were the brothers of my great, Great Grandmother, Barbara Prewit-Wright.

Please consider this e-mail as my direct demand to the LDS church and respond to me that you have arranged to satisfy my demand.

Respectfully,

Ronald W. Wright

Another letter sent to LDS Elder Jensen by Patty Noris, MMA:
I am in total agreement. I personally made this request on behalf of all the victims at a meeting in SLC in Feburary.

And now the letter we sent today:

We are in total agreement with the letter to Elder Jensen. All victims of the Fancher/Baker wagon train need to be allowed to rest in peace. Mormon Doctrine states that during the Millennium, that thousand years will be used to do their “work for dead.” So why does the Mormon Church choose to do that work now–because their desires supersede anyone else’s. It is the epitome of arrogance to believe that as the murderers, they have the right to do with the victims as they please. The Mormon Priesthood perpetuated this crime; likewise, they need to leave these victims rest in peace. The Mormon Church needs to cease and desist immediately!

Ann: Youâ€™re not dealing with run-of-the-mill Mormons here, Helen. Theyâ€™re bright, highly literate, and well-educated. Many, many of them are very interested in Mormon History and have studied it thoroughly.

Rusty:I have no intention of persuading Helen, nor any illusion to that possibility. I just wanted to make fun of her enough so that she would leave (it clearly hasnâ€™t worked, perhaps I should crank it up to 11?)

Iâ€™ve been blogging for over three years now and am acutely aware that there are certain people who are interested in conversation. It is manifestly clear that Helen is not one of them. In fact, I will act as a prophet and prophesy that she is only going to be around for this one thread and then disapper. She doesnâ€™t care about what we have to say inasmuch as it contradicts her current beliefs so thereâ€™s no real point in trying to engage with her in serious conversation. Therefore, the only logical recourse is to salvage the conversation by making her into the butt of your joke, at least you get a good joke out of it.

Not that any of you care, but I will be gone for awhile to Utah. I will at Mountain Meadows! Just check out the “Newsflash!” on our website. Here is just one of the things that descendants of the Massacre are asking for on this the 150th anniversary of the murders!

Dear Elder Jensen:

This is in response to an article I read in the Deseret News, in which you were quoted as saying you only have received only one request to remove the names of only a few people from the LDS baptismal database.

As a family member of two young men who were murdered by Mormons at the Mountain Meadows in 1857, John and William Prewit, I demand the LDS Church and all of its affiliated people and entities expunge from your records any information that would lead one to believe that the LDS or its people have baptized or otherwise brought the souls of these two murder victims into any kind of ritual, baptism, or otherwise accepted them as Mormons, LDS members, Saints, Gods, or any kind of acceptance by the LDS whatsoever.

I am deeply affronted that your organization would have the nerve to do such a thing after the atrocities that occurred by members of your organization against my kin. These boys were Christian men on their way to California and were too young to have families as direct descendents. They were the brothers of my great, Great Grandmother, Barbara Prewit-Wright.

Please consider this e-mail as my direct demand to the LDS church and respond to me that you have arranged to satisfy my demand.

Respectfully,

Ronald W. Wright

Our email:

We are in total agreement with the letter to Elder Jensen. All victims of the Fancher/Baker wagon train need to be allowed to rest in peace. Mormon Doctrine states that during the Millennium, that thousand years will be used to do their “work for dead.” So why does the Mormon Church choose to do that work now–because their desires supersede anyone else’s. It is the epitome of arrogance to believe that as the murderers, they have the right to do with the victims as they please. The Mormon Priesthood perpetuated this crime; likewise, they need to leave these victims rest in peace. The Mormon Church needs to cease and desist immediately!

Re #83,
You see Rusty, Helen substituted the word ‘profit’ for the word ‘prophet’ in her comment to you. This is a funny play on words because they sound alike, but using the word ‘profit’ illustrates that we belong to a cult that is only interested in financial gain. Get it?? That Helen, so clever!!

Christopher Cain came out of retirement to do this movie. It makes me wonder – is it bad for the same reason that the Book of Mormon movie was bad? Because the passion and fervor behind it was idealogical rather than artistic in nature? The movie certainly succeeds in presenting a certain ideology, and in one believes that ideology, it happily reinforces a ‘Mormons=Crazy’ mentality. It’s a miserable failure artistically, and I can’t help but think that surely those involved would have recognized such shortcomings in a work that wasn’t designed to glorify their gens.

I almost want to see what could have been done to salvage it.
1) If the love story must be kept, give them better dialogue. Have Tamara Hope do something besides breathe heavily before Trent Ford says she’s a singularity.

3) Cut the horse-whisperer stuff for a few scenes of life in the Mormon settlement and make the Mormons realistic and two-dimensional. That way, when the decision is made to kill the visiting wagon train, we can see where it came from and maybe gain tension from seeing the idea appear and grow. In the movie as it is, there was no arc at all. The Mormons were threatening and evil for no discernible reason from the moment they appeared, and the lame love story is there to serve as a distraction from the straight line of the plot.

4) Get rid of the anachronisms, both verbal and visual. They were very distracting and made the whole thing seem amateurish. The visiting party sound like 21st-century Protestant moderates. I’m not versed in nineteenth-century Protestant thoughts and speech, but I’m guessing that they didn’t talk about religion like modern tenth-graders on MySpace.

5) More Joseph Smith. If he is going to appear at all, then more of him would be nice. The details were not right, but the feeling of a charismatic man leading devoted men was well-done, and it could have been fleshed out more. The flashbacks went by so quickly, and nothing of what it revealed could be seen affecting the characters in the main action. There was a nugget there of a good story.

Christopher Cain came out of retirement to do this movie. It makes me wonder – is it bad for the same reason that the Book of Mormon movie was bad? Because the passion and fervor behind it was idealogical rather than artistic in nature? The movie certainly succeeds in presenting a certain ideology, and in one believes that ideology, it happily reinforces a â€˜Mormons=Crazyâ€™ mentality. Itâ€™s a miserable failure artistically, and I canâ€™t help but think that surely those involved would have recognized such shortcomings in a work that wasnâ€™t designed to glorify their gens.

The purpose of this particular movie was not to make an artistic film, else they would have actually made it well. When you come to an anniversary like 150 years, you tend to want to put out a message. Remember the really poor Christopher Columbus movies that came out in 1992 for the 500th year anniversary? Who remembers them? Some might remember the good Vangelis music, but other than that, who remembers the movies? They were put out because someone told them to put it out, not because some artist had a great vision for a Christopher Columbus movie.

I’ve never seen, nor probably ever will see, the Book of Mormon movie that was made a few years back. I think you’ve got plenty of great drama and plot in the Book of Mormon to create fairly good stories, but, to this point I’ve not heard of anything good. Does anyone know of any writer who took on writing some fictional story that takes place in Book of Mormon time? I’ve been considering writing something myself, but wanted to see if anyone else has tackled this yet.

You should try Orson Scott Card’s Homecoming series. Books #1-4 are based on Nephi and his brothers. My favorite is #5, which is basically the book of Mosiah. There’s a great drama of politics and family in the story of Alma and King Mosiah and their sons, and Card does a great job of telling it. Before I read that book, it never occurred to me that some people might have gone along with Alma the younger and the sons of Mosiah because they were clearly the future of the country.

Dan–to your question “Does anyone know of any writer who took on writing some fictional story that takes place in Book of Mormon time?” may I forcefully suggest that you find something else to write about? Yes, this has been done. (Not only Scott, who disguised the BOM), but David Woolley, who was pretty badly treated by his publisher. And there are romances about “forbidden love” between Nephites and Lamanites–set in Tikal, Guatemala, judging from the cover.

I promise you–your own life has more drama for you to draw from than the Book of Mormon, because you LIVED your life. It’s yours. I have my students do an exercise where they write a scripture story not actually in the scriptures–such as Leah’s version of her wedding to Jacob. Far too often, they fall into exactly the sort of errors _September Dawn_ did–stereotypes, anachronistic language, cheap lines that sound very created and strained. Each of us has so much to say from our own hearts. I’d love to read your story. I have my own images of what the Book of Mormon is and who its characters are.

After I did all that research about MMM, I sent copies of what I’d found to the three people (two I’m related to, but not on that side) who are direct descendants of John Main Urie, rumored (Ardis says incorrectly)to have married a survivor.

One is a member of our ward, good friends of ours. He is on the high council and he spoke in our ward about a month ago and he spoke of the lonely lives many of these men lived after the massacre, how it changed them, and how it affected his family. He didn’t defend their actions, he just spoke of the pain they’d suffered as a result.

I think Katie’s suggestions for improvement for September Dawn are good, and I’d like to add one of my own.

There should be actual cheerleaders around the bonfire leading the chants of “blood atone-ment, blood atone-ment”, and all the spectators should wave those big foam index fingers that say “We’re No. 1!”

“he spoke of the lonely lives many of these men lived after the massacre, how it changed them, and how it affected his family.”

That reminds me of the other movie I saw last weekend that involved one brother begging the other kill him. “A Simple Plan” is about what happens to those who do get away with murder, and it was very well done.

– Chris Heimerdingerâ€™s Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites Series, as well as others such as Passage to Zarahemla, the movie of which comes out this fall.
– David Woolleyâ€™s Promised Land series
– H.B. Mooreâ€™s Out of Jerusalem series
– Covenantâ€™s Dramatized Book of Mormon

I suspect that my point’s relevance has already passed, but I’d like to challenge the notion that Brian Patrick’s _Burying the Past_ is skewed “against the church as much as possible at every available moment.” I really wonder if we were watching the same documentary, Eric. Patrick surely had an agenda in making the documentary, but being a copy cat of the God Makers is hardly it. Patrick’s intent is to document the efforts at reconciliation between the descendents of the perpetrators and the descendents of the victims–truly an awe-inspiring phenomenon that is unfolding quietly in the Mountain Meadows Association.
Patrick allows for various viewpoints in the documentary. Aside from representatives from the families, he also gives Will Bagley an opportunity to present his argument about Brigham Young’s alleged complicity. Well-respected historian (and church member) Gene Sessions is given equal time to present cournter arguments that essentially show that there is not enough evidence that BY was complicit. Glen Leonard (former director of the Church’s museum and co-author of the new MM book) represents the church’s position, and, although Glen is not the most charismatic person the church could put behind a camera, he does a good job. Patrick may not be defending the church, but he certainly is not attacking it either.
_Burying the Past_ is available in BYU’s LRC, for those that want to view it for free (like I did). They’ll also be showing it at the commemoration in the coming week (for a steep $7 ticket). But in terms of a visual representation of the massacre and the recent efforts toward reconciliation, there is nothing better. The History Channel apparently did a documentary on it, but I have not seen it so I can not say how it is. I believe that there are also a few other lesser-known documentaries that interested individuals could track down.

Good points, David. Iâ€™m going off of notes from when I saw it three years ago, but I have that it

– it emphasized the travelerâ€™s absolute innocence in spite of things I have read to the contrary
– emphasized the Mormonsâ€™ Old Testament eye for an eye mentality
– downplayed Brighamâ€™s letter to the saints
– hinted at some kind of conspiracy that the bones were sent to BYU for study
– seemed less about reconciliation than about how the church refuses to take ultimate blame

Then again, I confess my experience was tainted. I saw it at the Idaho film festival in a room of people full of contempt for the church. There were gasps and guffaws all the way through. When Bagley states that the massacre was done â€œby a people who believed they were doing godâ€™s willâ€ the theater erupted in a horrified laughter. The final, quiet, black screen that states â€œDescendants of the victims still await an apology from Gordon B. Hinckleyâ€ brought tears, shakes of heads and angry calls.

Youâ€™re probably right that thereâ€™s more objectivity to it than it seems. But Iâ€™ll tell you what, people who hate the church loved it.

Eric,
Thanks for clarifying your earlier statement. I think that some of the things that you point out could simply stem from Patrick’s ignorance, rather than a malicious agenda against the church. Patrick states in the documentary that he met with President Hinckley before he made the film, indicating that the church had some interest in it during production.

If I recall correctly, Patrick ended the documentary with the dedication of the Mountain Meadows monument, and the dissatisfaction expressed by many descendents of the victims with President Hinckley’s decision not to issue an apology. While I agree that Patrick did not need to end on that note, since it puts the church on the spot, it doesn’t necessarily change the truthfulness of the dissatisfaction among the descendents of the victims.

That’s too bad that you had to watch it under those circumstances. I can see how the company could influence what you thought of it.

Helen, we’re talking real Mormon history — not the faith promoting, fictional variety. It’s not honest to show up here and accuse Mormons of not knowing the truth, and then accuse them of self-aggrandizement when they point out that there are actually some notable scholars among us who do.

Furthermore, your presumption that Mormons don’t know the difference between (say) the writings of McConkie or Joseph Fielding Smith (on the one hand) and the real history of Brodie or Quinn or Brooks or Arrington (on the other) is indicative of nothing more than blind prejudice and ignorance. Nor is anyone here unaware of the revisions that have occurred in scriptures, doctrinal texts, and historical accounts. Yawn. I assure you, the history that we Mormons read is more accurate than whatever you’ve read to convince yourself that any of this is news.

Bottom line: If the movie September Dawn had shown the members of the Fancher party behaving like you’re behaving here, then their murderers would have seemed downright sympathetic.

Every review I have read says that the movie is highly prejudiced against the Mormons. Its too bad because the real story is very interesting and if told factually would expose some of the ways 19th century Mormons were very different than what the Church has evolved into today. The Meadows Mountain Massacre was a tragedy, But it sounds like the film is just a propaganda flim appealing to those who already have a negative view of the Mormon church or Mormons.

Just discovered this thread. Best joke running top to bottom: Wrong turn on route to CA from AK. Meanest words: someone said Helen was “stupid.” Directly, without even softening it up. Best discussion: David Grua and Eric Russell. Margaret Young is exceptionally even-tempered, as are a couple others.

It is interesting, what we do in the face of open, hostile, ignorant comments. I think that making fun is funny, and being serious is difficult. Certainly engaging conversation is near impossible. And communication and understanding are rare. Probably most of my recollection of this thread are based on the last 20 comments or so, but really, can’t we do better? Can’t we just ignore people like Helen that so obviously are bent on being insensitive toward the most cherished part of our lives? We all make typos (I’m sure you’ll find a couple in this comment), and we all occasionally might write profit instead of prophet, but proffit? Now that is just plain silly.

I’m going to ignore my own advice and attempt to engage Helen in a discussion.

Helen, please report back on how your conference goes next week. And, please, let us know if you think your efforts increase, don’t affect, or decrease your spirituality. Specifically, and assuming you are Christian, do you feel that your mission against the LDS Church helps you to more fully live Christ’s teachings?

Helen, also, please take this on:

As commented numerous times by numerous others, why do anti-Mormons so vigorously attack the LDS church and its members? Do they consider other churches to teach less horrifying doctrines, or to ruin fewer lives by inculcating the masses with feelings of guilt and self-criticism? What is so different about the evolution and re-vamping of Mormonism when compared to Catholicism, Evangelism, or Judaism, or any other modern church? How many contemporary anti-Mormons gainsay Christianity generally for using an unoriginal edition of the Bible? Or when the Church Fathers disagreed, or when Creeds conflicted? Or when Popes have been murdered, or wars waged, or etc, etc, etc? Why all the focused and venom-spewing attacks? Do your answers indicate that you (or your husband Rocky) simply feel wronged on a personal level and not on a theological one? I’ve just never been able to put my finger on this, accept for what has been previously quoted from the Book of the Acts of the Apostles by two commenters. Also, I really feel that John’s Revelation is true. Lucifer and the dragon made war against God and his Saints.

I also have a burning question to ask of any anti- or ex-mormon. Which came first, the commission of an act that the Church would call serious sin, or the realization that the Church isn’t “true”? To put it another way, was it a spiritual manifestation that led you to your new life of rejecting the Church, or was it feelings of guilt, inadequacy, and self-loathing, followed by constant reaffirmation (in the form of a continuous tirade against the Church) that you’ve done the right thing?

For example, let’s take the example of the Dooce. She’s a famous SLC blogger that makes piles of cash bashing on Mormons and their beliefs, taking (numerous) pictures of her dog, daughter and husband, and writing about the mundane affairs of her, and her family’s, life. And she does it with style, humor, crassness, and in my opinion, interesting prose.

She says somewhere on her blog, and I haven’t read every single post, but somewhere in there, that she dropped out of BYU, went to some other school, eventually moved to LA and started researching penises, alcohol, and creative nap-taking strategies. She seems to have been raised in a fairly orthodox mormon home. So which was it Dooce, first to SIN or first to DISBELIEVE? If that part of the story is already on her blog, I missed it, please post link.

Along this same line of thought, one of the general authorities stated in an ensign article (could have been a conference talk), not quoting: don’t let science [i.e., empiricism, or non-spirituality] turn you away from your beliefs. If you came into the Church by a spiritual awakening, only go out by the same medium. I really like that, and I’ve never heard one story by and ex- or anti- that involved a spiritual manifestation leading them away from the Church. Always logic, evidence, and/or persuasively written anti-literature.

It’s a chicken/egg arguement. My point is that it’s antagonistic, smug, and in all ways less effective to tell someone they left the church, or in this case deliberately misrepresent the history and doctrine of the church, because of some great sin they are guilty of.

I promise youâ€“your own life has more drama for you to draw from than the Book of Mormon, because you LIVED your life. Itâ€™s yours. I have my students do an exercise where they write a scripture story not actually in the scripturesâ€“such as Leahâ€™s version of her wedding to Jacob. Far too often, they fall into exactly the sort of errors _September Dawn_ didâ€“stereotypes, anachronistic language, cheap lines that sound very created and strained. Each of us has so much to say from our own hearts. Iâ€™d love to read your story. I have my own images of what the Book of Mormon is and who its characters are.

FishH/KyleM/Dan etc: All unrepented serious sin eventually leads to apostasy. But not all apostasy comes from unrepented sin.

In my case, I sinned, I didn’t repent, then I left the church. I didn’t stop believing the church was God’s official church. That part was burned in via spiritual experience. So I was careful not to speak out against the church. But boy was I hopping mad towards not a few individuals in the church.

Eventually the conversations in my head went something like this:

Me: God, those Mormons are are bunch of jerks!

God: Do you mean all of them?

Me: No. You know the ones I’m talking about. So-and-so, and so-and-so, and so-and-so, and so on. You know what they did.

God: Yes, I know all about them and what they did. What do you want me to do about it?

Me: I dunno. You’re God. Isn’t your church supposed to be better?

God: Yeah, but look what I have to work with. And I can’t force people to do the right thing. Remember agency. Besides, did you do everything you were supposed to do?

Me: Uh… no.

God: Did you sin?

Me: Uh… yes.

God: Did you repent?

Me: Uh… no.

God: Then why are you pointing the finger at those others? Clean up your own house first, and then we’ll talk about them.

Me: Uh… you got a point.

Then the interesting thing was that after I started getting my own house in order, eventually the wounds caused by the offenses of “those others” started to heal, and those offenses just started to dissolve or fade into the background and become unimportant.

Applying the atonement to the sins that others committed against me was part of the repentance process of applying the atonement to myself.

Repentance and forgiveness go hand in hand.

If you aren’t repenting, you aren’t forgiving. And if you aren’t forgiving, you aren’t repenting.

Repent of your own sins, and you’ll find it easier to forgive. Forgive others, and you’ll find it easier to repent.

Hence, it’s a feedback cycle, either way you go, whether in the good direction or in the bad direction.

So when someone holds grudges against others (contemporaries or even people from the past) it’s a pretty good sign he or she isn’t repenting of his or her own sins.

I do acknowledge that some people have a crisis of faith due to anti-mormon literature, or problematic “warts-and-all” type history.

But in my case, losing the Spirit led to loss of the armor or insulation that seemed to protect me from the offensive actions of other members. What would have been minor irritation had I maintained the Spirit, was intolerable without divine protection.

Extending Helen’s logic to other areas, she should also have problems with modern day Japanese and Germans for their atrocities in WWII. Those are even more recent. And with the US Government for atrocities committed against the American Indians.

There are so many more atrocities of much more recent vintage, more tragic, more unjust, more lives lost, committed by bigger and more influential institutions and governments, with longer lasting and bigger after-effects. It makes one wonder why some former members have made the MMM their pet cause.

And I think Margaret has a point. This week’s Sunday School lesson contains this passage from 1 Corintians v12-13.

“… being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: Being defamed, we intreat: …”

You’re right to point out that sin is very often a factor, but it is not necessarily the first place we should look. Some people have trust or other issues, often through no fault of their own, that make it very difficult for them to trust a father in heaven or Church leaders here, and that makes it easy to leave the Church. I think Helen’s ideas should be discussed on the merits, but unfortunately, she has shown that she desires to be angry at Mormons; there is something she derives from it. If Galatians 5:22-23 is a good description of the influence of the Spirit of God, then Helen does not have it with regards to us, and her anger may be the reason for that, not some specific transgression in her past.

Your comment #116 made me laugh. It was a conversation very like the one you describe that helped me begin to reconcile several unfortunate things that had happened to me and my family.

My favorite part–God: Look what I have to work with!

Maybe the settlers who committed MMM were the best people at that time and place, and in that case the best weren’t very good. On the other hand, it should be clear that, since it is an isolated incident, MMM doesn’t really represent who we as a Church are.

It’s interesting to read the discussion which this movie has spawned. It’s even more interesting to me to read the discussion which Helen Hulse has spawned.

I’m somewhat surprised that no one has pointed out that Helen and her husband Rocky run the Nauvoo “Christian Visitors’ Center.” I’m sure many of you have been to Nauvoo and have walked or driven past the Christian Visitors’ Center; it’s only about a block away from the temple and it has a big Jesus fish on the front of the building. My brother and I went inside, foolishly assuming that it was a Christian bookstore with some anti-Mormon leanings. The place turned out to be nothing more than a shop brimming with homemade anti-Mormon pamphlets (As an aside, who wants to pay for anti-Mormon pamphlets when you can get so much more online for free?). Rocky engaged my brother in conversation; it was clear that he had an agenda he wanted to push, so I walked around the shop and acquainted myself with what the Hulses had to offer. The most interesting artifact presented in the shop was a quilt depicting nine different versions of the First Vision story.

As I walked around the Visitors’ Center and listened to the discussion between Rocky and my brother, an interesting realization came over me. It does not particularly bother me that Rocky and Helen do not believe in Mormon teachings. It doesn’t bother me that they feel a need to evangelize or convince me as they do. What struck me is that all of their effort is spent in beating down the Mormon faith, and none of it is spent in promoting the “better” faith which they have found. Rocky or Helen could come up to me and say, “I know you’re a Mormon, but I believe I have found a better way. Can I tell you about it?” I wouldn’t be offended by this at all; it’s what I tried to do for two years as a missionary. Yet instead of providing positive, faith-affirming alternatives to my current belief system, I was merely assaulted by all of the reasons why I SHOULDN’T believe.

This is, to me, the greatest tragedy of anti-Mormonism. In emphasizing only what is perceived as wrong or bad about the LDS church, anti-Mormons oftentimes leave disillusioned members in a state where they are liable to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” A member whose faith has been disturbed by anti-Mormon publications may not just stop believing in Joseph Smith and the Bible, but also in an afterlife, God, and Jesus Christ.

So here’s my question for Helen: why not take a more positive, faith-promoting approach to what you do in the Nauvoo Christian Visitors’ Center? Why not supplant all of those faith-damaging anti-Mormon pamphlets with faith-affirming declarations of your belief in a “better way?”

Oops! Mistake in my post: “A member whose faith has been disturbed by anti-Mormon publications may not just stop believing in Joseph Smith and the Bible” should read “…Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.”

I am finally back from behind the Zion Curtain Utah! It appears that while I was gone a few of you at least had fun with my a typo, or maybe it kept your small minds busy!??

MOUNTAIN MEADOWS ~ The 150th YEAR COMMEMORATION of the MASSACRE AMERICA’S FIRST 9/11
September 11th 2007 was the 150th year since the horrific day when 120 innocent men, women, and children were brutally, senselessly murdered by Mormon Priesthood in Southwestern Utah. The occasion was marked with several events to remember those whose lives were irrationally taken by religious fanaticism. Two men on horseback lead out carrying the American Flag, Arkansas Flag, followed by a Fancher Wagon, and family members carrying 29 pennants representing each of the family names that were victims of the massacre, approaching the massacre site on September 11, 2007.

On Tuesday September 11th a formal ceremony marking the infamous day was held where were approximately 450 people in attendance. The ceremony began with the Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation leading a procession into the Carelton Cairn site. The procession was lead off by two horsemen, one with the United States Flag and the other with the State of Arkansas Flag. These were followed by a Fancher Conestoga wagon depicting the wagon train and twenty-nine pennants carried by descendants with the family names of the victims murdered by the Mormon Church Priesthood.

Mormon Apostle Henry B. Eyring was in attendance and spoke on behalf of the Mormon Church. ” We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today, and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time,” Eyring said. He also made a statement of regret to the Paiute Indians, “who have unjustly borne for too long the principle blame for what occurred during the massacre.”

Brigham Young expressly blamed the Indians for the massacre when he knew full well they were not the perpetrators of the crimes! Lying for the Lord has shown itself to be acceptable behavior in the Mormon culture through out its history.

Regret is not an admission of guilt; it is simply an expression of sorrow for something that happened. The Mormon Church has never offered an apology to the families of this victims for the killings; an apology would be an admission of guilt.

The Church has joined with many people who say that the terrible events of the Mountain Meadows Massacre should be forgiven and forgotten. In that context, “forgive and forget.” the Mormon Church is ignoring its own doctrines. In the book “The Miracle of Forgiveness,” written by their own 12th Prophet, Spencer W. Kimball in Chapter 13 it says: “The confession of sin is a necessary element in repentance and therefore in obtaining forgiveness. It is one of the tests of true repentance, for, “By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins…behold, he will confess them and forsake them.” (page 177). On page 178 of the same book it says: “Perhaps confession is one of the hardest of all the obstacles for the repenting sinner to negotiate. His shame often restrains him from making known his guilt and acknowledging his error. Sometimes his assumed lack of confidence in mortals to whom he should confess his sin justifies in his mind his keeping the secret locked in his own heart.”

It is the height of hypocrisy that the Mormon Church screams from the rooftops when acts of violence have been committed against Mormons; but, is dead silent when Mormons have committed acts of violence. The “persecution syndrome” is alive and well in Mormonism and we are reminded of it for any acts committed against them, yet without admission of any responsibility on their behalf, any acts of violence committed by Mormons should be forgiven and forgotten.

The Mountain Meadows was the first 9/11 in American History — yet the Mormon Church refuses to take the responsibility for this event and therefore, by its own doctrine, cannot forgive for this heinous act of unthinkable violence against unarmed, men, women, and children.

Phil Bolinger, President of MMMF addressed the crowd and read letters from the United States Senators and Congressman from the great State of Arkansas, the Governor, and all 50 State Representative to the Arkansas State Congress, voicing their request that the Mormon Church cooperate with the MMMF in turning the Mormon Church owned property, where the four mass graves that hold the victims of this horrific event lie, over to the Federal Government so the remain of the victims can be properly interred and the area can be turned into a National Monument. The Mormon Church refuses to do so saying “it is not in the best interest of the Church.” Again, how can the Mormon Church be forgiven if they won’t even accept responsibility for the act, and won’t cooperate to make right this terrible wrong? In accordance with its own doctrines, the Mormon Church cannot be forgiven of this awful deed committed by its Priesthood if it won’t knowledge responsibility for the action.

The push for Federal Stewardship continues. This was the first battle of the Utah War…an ambush of innocent civilians by the Mormon Militia. All battlefields in the U.S. are properly designated as National Battlefields and appropriately marked as National Monuments and managed by the Department of Interior. Mountain Meadows should be no different. If you haven’t’ done so, write your Senators and Congressman and ask them to support the Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation’s request to have the Mormon Church turn Mountain Meadows over to Federal Stewardship for National Battlefield and National Monument status.

On Sunday, September 9th, a ceremony was held at the main mass grave site, known as the Carleton Cairn, where at least thirty-four sets of remains lie under a twelve foot conical shaped pile of rocks, called a cairn. This event was for the descendants and invited guests.
We were invited by Phil Bolinger, the President of Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation (MMMF), Ron Wright, Bob Fancher and Scott Fancher to attend this solemn event. Each of victims’ names and ages were read. When a name was read, descendants were invited to stand and tell something about this person. Of the 120 victims, 90 were twenty-one years of age or younger. Placed on a table in front of the speaking platform were 137 white wooden crosses. Thirty were eighteen inch crosses with a black ribbon bow placed in the center of the cross for the thirty adults over age twenty-one that were murdered. There were 90 smaller, twelve inch crosses with a black ribbon bow for those 90 murdered individuals who were age twenty-one or less; and then seventeen small twelve inch crosses with red ribbon bows them to signify the seventeen children under age seven that were spared and placed in Mormon homes until recovered two years later and returned to family members in Arkansas. After the names were all read and comments made about those murdered, the crosses were placed on the wrought iron fence surrounding the cairn.

No cross has adorned the massacre site since the cross originally erected by US Cavalry, Brevet Major Carelton’s men in May 1859. It was torn down when Brigham Young visited the site in 1861 and ordered its destruction.

DKL–seriously, are there no rules for Mormon Mentality? I find rules on all of the other Mormon blogs, but I don’t find them here. I can’t imagine you don’t have any. If you don’t, this discussion of _September Dawn_ (and what resulted from it) might be a good impetus for establishing some guidelines for what will and will not be accepted at MM.

Helen, I promise we are not the terrible people you believe us to be. Open dialogue is a great thing, and we would love to have that with you- honestly, we would. When you come to our blog and simply launch tirades about our church instead of taking a genuine interest in what we think and feel, that does not feel like open dialogue to us- we feel more like we’re being vomited on, than engaged in honest dialogue.
What would you like to discuss? What would you like to know about us? What are your genuine human concerns about us? If you can be clear about those kinds of things, I’m certain we can come to a mutual understanding and be better off for it.

I’m sure if we want to know what Helen wants to talk about, we can buy quilts or books at her bookstore, and read her husband’s forthcoming book. (Actually, I’d love a quilt depicting the various versions of the First Vision. It sounds inspirational.) There are plenty of places where Helen and others can rant about Mormons and our “small minds.” Mormon Mentality should not offer to be one of those forums. And I’m still looking for those rules. Times and Seasons has these guidelines, which I support:
1. Comments are expected to reflect different points of view. Critiques of others’ positions are to be expected, but those critiques should be of the argument, not the person. No insults.

2. As a general matter, Times and Seasons is a forum for believing members or for others who are willing to respect members’ beliefs. Commenters do not need to believe in the Church, but comments that suggest that all believers are per se unintelligent or uninformed are not welcome.

3. On the flip side, it is also unacceptable to call into question a commenter’s personal righteousness.

“It is the height of hypocrisy that the Mormon Church screams from the rooftops when acts of violence have been committed against Mormons; but, is dead silent when Mormons have committed acts of violence.”

So Helen, what would you call someone who screams from the rooftops about MMM — an act of violence done by Mormons — but is dead silent about acts done against Mormons?

By your logic, wouldn’t that also be hypocrisy?

You’ve got a website and newsletter and a thousand comments about MMM. What exactly have you said about atrocities committed against Mormons?

I love it that you suggest T&S rules to David. I think that he has a constitutional aversion to comment rules in general, and he’s certainly had a few high-profile clashes with T&S over our rules in particular. :)

I think one rule should be that MM threads should not take so damn long to load up. Fix your code, Dave. Something is amiss.

Anne, and Margaret,

That quilt does sound cool, doesn’t it? Are those available online?

And speaking of the Zion Curtain, how cool would that be? A curtain, with a depiction of the City of Zion being taken into heaven — that would totally rock, wouldn’t it?

We could do a whole line of home decor! Really exciting ideas, Kaimi. But let me suggest Zion window blinds rather than curtains. Think about it. You raise the blinds and you get the illusion that the city is actually being taken heavenward and into Zion–and then you see all of the sin outside your window and wonder how you got left behind. Lamps held up by Nephite/Lamanite heroes; folding chairs which look like gold plates (but they would have to fole/unfold horizontally); candle sticks settled on representations of the Three Degrees of Glory (sun, moon, stars, candles…) Don’t let Missionary Emporium hear about this. Somebody will actually do it.

By the way, Margaret, I did a comment search on T&S. I was deeply disappointed to find out that I’d never told someone, “go to hell,” (that exact phrase), in a comment. I coulda sworn I’d said that to DKL and/or Steve Evans at least once a year. I must have spelled something wrong.

I’ve never understood why people can’t let go of the violence done years and years, sometimes decades, sometimes hundreds, and sometimes thousands of years ago.

Frankly what concerns me is not what others did in the past; nothing of their actions can be changed; it is set in stone, and they will all have to face it at Judgment Day.

What concerns me is what violence we (all humans) are doing to each other RIGHT NOW. We don’t need to be persecuting each other for the violences any of our ancestors did one to another. I would hope (but alas I should hope pigs fly first) that we’ve learned our lessons about resorting to violence to solve our problems and how ineffectual it really is. But alas we have not, and we will get worse. Heck the whole Jaredite nation collapsed and basically wiped itself out because it could not learn to stop killing. What a shame.

Margaret, your comment # 138 seems to have evolved 180 degrees from your comments # 15 and #47. I suppose I need to repent of rejoicing when I see even the most patient of saints respond in a natural human fashion to being provoked.

And then this…

“… Zion window blinds … You raise the blinds and you get the illusion that the city is actually being taken heavenward and into Zion â€“ and then you see all of the sin outside your window and wonder how you got left behind.”

I can think of several massacres committed on US soil since the MMM, that seem to have slipped into oblivion.

Here in Indiana, one scandal is how Confederate soldiers were deliberately starved to death in POW camps in Indiana. That is post-MMM. Union soldiers probably fared not much better in Confederate POW camps.

Oh, and forced relocation of Native Americans, and the wholesale theft of reservations when oil or other minerals were discovered.

I mean it’s one (bad) thing to have forced them onto reservations where they could not maintain their former way of life. But then to kick them off the resource-poor reservations to even worse places, just so white men could get at the oil. Wow. That blows me away.

I’m not worried about people in the LDS church today committing MMM-like atrocities any more than I am about Germans or Japanese committing WWII-like atrocities.

The people who comitted the atrocities are dead, and I do not think they passed their murderous desires on to their descendents.

Actually, I can blame menopause for only a portion of my temper–which I can often conceal pretty well online. (Wish I did as well in real life.)

I looked at Helen’s blog, at her description of Jane Manning James, and was not only appalled by the inaccuracies but offended.

Jane is a part of my life. I have spent a lot of years making sure people learn about her and remember her for the noble, faithful soul she was. I feel her prodding me forward at times, and her great great grandson have sometimes commented about how close she seems.

To have what someone slander Jane’s faith and make such blatant errors in the historical account in order to serve their own agenda is very hard to take. And since I am at the age when I can blame pretty much everything on menopause, I do it on occasion.

I don’t really think Helen should go to Hell. And I would only tell her to go there if that was the best place to establish a profitable branch of her bookstore. (Certainly, Hell will involve a lot of contention.) But I definitely don’t think she belongs on this blog or any other within the bloggernackle. She seems to delight in igniting fires. If I need a fire, I’ll be sure it’s well-contained in a fireplace, not consuming the tender directions of my best intentions.

I just came back from skimming Helen’s web site and her blog. I’m feeling compassion and sorrow towards Helen and Rocky. What saddens me is the bitterness they harbor. I admire their zealousness for the Lord. But you can’t escape the bitterness and anger that shows through in much (most?) of the text on their web site.

If one uses their standards to judge the LDS church, then by the same standards, the Catholic church must be just as bad as the LDS church, or worse.

That’s one of the lesser-known aspects of evangelical oriented denominations, their disdain for the Catholic church, and that they generally don’t consider most Catholics as “saved” except for the “charismatic” movement of Catholicism.

So while they don’t consider 13 million Mormons to be Christian, they don’t consider some 600 million Catholics to be Christian either.

I’ve been the subject of concern (for being Mormon) directed towards me by friends and family of various protestant denominations. And I have to admire the way they approached me. Not confrontational at all, but out of genuine concern and love, and wanting to see me enjoy the benefits that they enjoy of believing in Christ

Much greater than my desire that Helen and Rocky see the overall truth and how things really are (as we Mormons see it, of course) is that they let go all that hate and bitterness.

Reasonable people can disagree. There is supporting evidence (though I don’t agree with their interpretation of that evidence, or how they accept some pieces and reject other pieces) for all their views.

But the platter upon which they are serving up their beliefs is contaminated with such bile.

Maybe Helen and Rocky have some old wounds that haven’t healed. There’s got to be more to their story.

What I’m starting to surmise is that this is the biggest thing that ever happened to these people and they want their 15 minutes of fame by being related to victims. Hell, if everybody did that, newspapers couldn’t keep up.

19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
24 Â¶ But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?
30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

This is a fantastic review for what I hope is a fantastic film (I’ve still yet to see it.) It’s hard to find a lot of chatter about it online, was glad that you went into such detail – I think it will be worth my time to pick up a copy.

As I consider fundamental structure of the Catholic and LDS Churches, I see a lot of similarities, mainly having to do with authoritarian aspects. The emphasis of the later Christian Church, after the Reformation and Luther’s postings, has been more of a one one one relationship with God through His Son. Which is correct, I don’t know, and it does bother me that I don’t have all day, every day to pursue the various issues. I find them fascinating.

Seems to me there is a big difference between Mormon bashing, or Catholic bashing or any other type of bashing in that basic doctrine and documents upholding that doctrine tend to become skewed or biased.

To me, the LDS Church is one of the finest organizations in the world today. It has it all when applied correctly. That being said, I wonder at what the basic facts would show, and whether it is even possible to get at the basic facts.

I feel no need to convince anyone of anything, in fact it goes against my nature, but I do like facts, and undistorted ones at that, and it bothers me intensely when they are misused by anyone.

Apology, in this sense, cn be construed of an admission of facts of any given matter, and it is a distinct feeling that once this is done, matters which bashers use in their bashing lose a lot of their strength.

It is sort of the idea of knowing the truth and letting it set us free.

I know this is a old post, talking about what is now an ancient movie. I am itching to make my comment about Helen.

I live in the Nauvoo area. I have “done” the church sites in Nauvoo with my family every year, for years. My daughter will be getting married in the Nauvoo Temple in Feb. 2010.

I have seen all the Anti-Mormon stuff out there. After many years of watching and pondering the interests of our Anti-friends, I have come to my conclusion. Here it is:

Everyone has a hobby or interest. Some like knitting, baking, candle -stick making. Others are into video games, computers and blog sites. Still others like alien theories, Star Trek and reenacting the Civil War – over and over again (very big in these parts).

Mormons are Helen’s hobby. As such, she will spend her money, make her sacrifices and live in a small apartment over the storefront of her Anti-Mormon office. No different than folks who spend all their money getting tattoos or collecting stamps. It is all very passionate and fun for those who find Helen’s hobby compelling. For those of us not interested, it is a big fat yawn. Just like my interest in Opera.

[…] Mormon Mentality – Thoughts and Asides by Peculiar People » Seven … – The ScriptureLog WordPress plugin 1.1.0 version has been released – now includes the Old Testament as well as the Book of Mormon (danithew); AP proves how much they hate Sarah Palin by assigning 11 fact checkers to verify her new book … […]